How many of you secretly hide your own beliefs in your work? Beliefs that you know the wider public wouldn't approve of and could cripple you professionally if it were to be known?
Some authors now long since dead are still falling to people twisting their words and making them out to be something they weren't. Tolkien being an obvious one. But did he do it intentionally? Was he hiding his opinions in plain sight to allow for a shield of debate?
I've written a few novels here and there (no, I will not be saying which, otherwise it would make it obvious), and each time I've managed to hide my own opinions in them. I've obscured them by having undesirable characters espouse them, or I've hidden them under what should be obvious allegory, just to give myself an escape route if anyone were to try to claim they were mine. I've even put conflicting ones in, though I've often favoured the my true belief.
Come on. Fess up.
I think women have lives on really fucking easy mode. Even in shit countries, it's better to be treated as cattle than cannon fodder. I think society is set up to fuck me (male) up.
I think Islam is screwed at the outset due to the qur'an supposedly being the word of god and everyone should stop trying to score PC points and admit tat it's incompatible with lots of what we call liberal / western values. Fashionable coffee house faux intellectuals like zizek (who I like), and /lit/ are not willing to admit this.
I now treat all art as disposable entertainment. Gravity's Rainbow one second, star wars the next. Woop dee doo, they're as meaningful as each other. Also the publishing system is just upper class clubhouse elitism, not that it's 100 % shit, but it does give me license to disregard literature as a whole. /lit/ won't admit this because they want to be part of the club, even though they were mostly too dumb for oxford. Even when tao lin's toilet paper gets published, /lit/ will refuse to admit that anything is wrong. IT's like steinbeck's quote about murrika being a nation of millionaires temporarily down on their luck.
I think Elliot rodger's manifesto was the best book of the 21st century. Yes, I think the youtube videos were a great ARTISTIC addition.
>>7457766
>blacks are inherently less sophisticated than whites or Asians (included them in my fantasy world solely to have slaves for Egypt-like empire)
>Jews are manipulative and self-victimisers (created a race of people that have historically been selfish and deprecating towards others whenever they are in power, but act pitiful and tolerant when they aren't)
>Islam is a barbaric and corrupt religion hellbent on using innocent people as a defence while it rips out the heart of the nation it is infecting (created a poisonous religion based on devil-worship masquerading as a benevolent path to human glory, spreading through lies and deceit)
>women will always be ruled by emotions and so unable to handle the truth if it upsets them (all respectable female characters think and act like men)
>political correctness is a hypocritical poison that will destroy western society (twisted the dominant empire at the time to espouse PC views and force them on everyone)
>violence is often the answer (all of the greatest heroes are violent sociopaths that kill enemies without a single ounce of guilt and it gets shit done)
>>7457793
>I now treat all art as disposable entertainment. Gravity's Rainbow one second, star wars the next. Woop dee doo, they're as meaningful as each other.
This seems like a contradiction on various levels. First, if art meaningful, how can it be disposable? Second, why do make the comparison between GR and SW? The first is all about making popular culture into "true art", the second (or at least the Ot) is a great example of a popular work with quite a lot of value; seems like there's not much to contrast.
>>7457793
>Also the publishing system is just upper class clubhouse elitism, not that it's 100 % shit, but it does give me license to disregard literature as a whole.
This is hitting me harder than anything. I've seen brilliant works of literature from no-named authors. But then shit like Stephen King gets on the front page just because its him.
Basically, if you see a book where the author's name is more grabbing than the title, it's just another example of the publishing elite. And, obviously, this elitism is found in most areas.
>>7457874
Hmm? Please just answer my questions? I'm not criticizing you, I'm actually curious as to what you think.
Were you saying all art was equally worthless?
I believe necessity is the biggest spook in history. People often excuse themselves saying I need this or that, the truth is that human beings don't need nothing, the survived in the wilderness for millions of years, and now people complain about how they don't have houses, or medicine, or iPods, or good art, or whatever other stupid shit they don't really need. I find it tremendously cowardly, whatever greatness a person can achieve is nothing in comparison to what can be seen in a mouse or a bird, who are completely without a society, out there in the elements; but please don't misunderstand, I'm not saying people are evil, what I'm saying is that they undersell themselves, the human animal is much stronger than what it believes it is, but because we live with others we're a bunch of whiners.
Another thing is words. Words, and memory as a whole, are a inherently fact by virtue of not being reality. But folks keep over what this or that is and what this or that is or should called. More bullshit excuses. The second a thought is uttered it is subject to decay; the second a word comes into the world, both as a form and from someone's mouth, it's only to be proven false by the rest of experience. It's misguided to think words should describe the world perfectly, or that thoughts can come into physical being. The realization of ideals is nothing more than an empty justification, and so can justify whatever the realizator feels the need for. The truth is that we don't need such justifications. But it's fine really, because this whole farce is nothing more than what it should be; ideas, just like everything else in the universe, propagate themselves.
>>7458003
*are inherently false by virtue of not being reality
*folks keep fussing over
*should be called
>>7457829
And let me guess, Trump is gonna make America great again?
>>7457829
I'm sorry to tell you this but your book is shit
I'm extremely religious and unapologetic about it and it shows in my work but that's because I want it to.
I also have a hatred for the West's policies overseas but, once again, I'm purposely infusing that within my work.
I also have some sort of strange opinions on metaphysics and ethics but my work will also show that.
If I'm ever satisfied by my work, I'll release it under a pseudonym.
>mfw this thread is full of edgy /pol/-tards too cowardly to admit they're human garbage in public
weekend /lit/ is so funny
>>7458806
And think about how many are still too scared to even post.
>>7458779
Wrong, wrong, wrong, [racist codeword], wrong, wrong. Were you trying to be facetious? Was there a point to this post at all?
Anyway, I'm not even engaging with your prejudices, I don't give a fuck if you hate women or whatever. that's your problem. I just think ideological tracts thinly disguised as works of fiction tend to be tedious. If you can't step outside your own beliefs then you're going to be a shit writer; that's as true as leftists as rightists, atheists as believers.
>>7458824
Congrats on editing the image. I know you're the same poster. It's the same flavour of butthurt.
>>7458837
Because it's inconceivable that two people could think you're an idiot
>>7458889
It's inconceivable two people would get so buttblasted about shit that doesn't concern them and then shitpost within minutes of each other but only raising the poster count by 1.
>>7458950
Ok
This is boring, I'm going to bed, have a good time being a shitter and stuff
>>7458906
doesn't make you any less /pol/
im sure all the reddit plebs here hate reddit too
>>7458992
How are my opinions /pol/?
>>7458997
oh i didn't read your post. you seem like an ok guy.
publishing under a pseudonym is pretty hard these days btw because they'll want you to promote
>>7459006
Yeah I've heard. I don't want to think of that until after I'm content with what I've penned, if I ever will be.
>>7459016
>inb4 you pull a kafka
>>7459023
That would be great. Kafka's one of my inspirations.
>>7458837
God /pol/ebs are delusional.
>>7458003
I may not agree with you but I respect your rigor and style
I'm kind of an essentialist, in that I believe that women ought to be women and that men ought to be men. It's clear to anybody living in these times that people have the capability for innumerable transformations, but I'm not as concerned with abstract freedom as I am concerned with what people /ought/ to be.
Along that line of thought, I think that homosexuals and trans-gendered/trans-sexual people represent an enormous impiety (or, if that word triggers you, an "adharma"), and that there is something inherently abhorrent and even abominable about them.
When I use the word impiety, please don't assume that I'm a religious person. I don't subscribe to any particular religion. Like many other people, I think that most of them are only so much superstition. My usage of the term "impiety" just seems to best reflect what I feel, in my innermost inwardness, when I see one of these people (that is, a woman who has renounced femininity, or an homosexual, or a transgender individual).
As you can probably tell, I'm not a very philosophical person. I think that even very complex philosophical positions (and simple ones like mine) are merely the expression of (and are merely in the service of) human feelings. Rather than pathways to the truth, I see them as means of expression.
That is, if I am backed into a corner, if the knives are at my ribs and if the hands are pressed against my throat—there's nothing that I can give them but the confessions of my heart. No subterfuge, or maneuvering, or passive-aggressive games. It's just how I feel. That's enough justification for them to do whatever disgusting things they want. It ought to be enough for me.
You could say that this is a radically nihilistic view, with no respect for the truth—but the truth remains that I've seen and understood, to the best of my ability, all the reasoned and rational defenses for homosexuality, transgenderism, and feminism—I'm not totally ignorant, I live in a very liberal area where all the information is available—and none of the explanations they've offered has moved me. There is an inner certainty within me that will never be palliated, not even by a mountain of words and reasoned arguments.
I don't want to express my views publicly because I don't want to starve to death.
These attitudes poison the things I write. Hopefully, time will bear me out.
I don't have anything published yet but I'm not afraid to voice my thoughts on things. None of it's truly controversial. They're different but I think they're ultimately rooted in good. Obviously I'm not going to go out of my way to say stuff. I'll voice my beliefs if it's "necessary".
Anyways I'm not afraid to express it because I'm not concerned with a professional career in it or how I'm viewed. I'm writing one story that on a somewhat personal level is for my parents and family and that's all that matters to me.
>>7459586
May I inquire into what you don't agree with, purely out of curiosity?
>>7457766
Go to sleep, Chuck.
>>7457766
Well, I don't think it's possible to write a work that doesn't include your opinions or beliefs at all, so that's a given. Authors generally don't underline it like, "here's what I thought", but I don't think that means they're "including secret messages in their works" or anything either. Since it's kind of obvious and natural.
>>7459671
what's your particular problem with homosexuals? I'm assuming you refer to gay men, although let me know if you meant lesbians too.
Specifically, if gay men act masculine, then they are men who are men that choose to partner up with another man who is a man and do things with their penises sometimes and their lives aren't much different for that. Right?
>>7459671
This seems like an awful lot of embellishment on the idea of 'I just really, really, hate gays, gosh darn it'.
And your justification also seems to be rooted in some kind of 'I'm not a religious person but I'm very spiritual' type nonsense (no, adharma doesn't trigger me less than impiety). I don't think you're nihilistic at all, since you obviously think that your own prejudices and preferences are somehow sacred and privileged (or that everybody's are sacred and should be privileged) above all the arguments of reason. Robust nihilism has no time for those kind of shibboleths (I could say 'spooks' but I don't want you to think I'm just memeing on you).
You should examine the fact that you feel so enormously strongly about the personal choices of people who have nothing to do with you. It's one thing to be personally a little repulsed, but to see that as evidence of an 'impiety' that has some sort of moral significance outside of your own feelings just smacks of mental illness, honestly. If you're truly worried about being persecuted for your views then I suggest you seek therapy to cure yourself of them.
I hate fucking Christians.
tfw atheists='annoying assholes'
>>7460642
Not the same guy, but it seems he ruffled your feathers with his own opinion about gays.
>>7458003
I disagree, I think words are neither inherently true or false. They are methods of relation--a way for a person or a group of people to relate to an object or idea. If enough people say that thing over there is a window then they have a reference for when they want to invoke that glass sheet that fills the hole in the wall. What are you on about, that a word instantly is "proven false by the rest of experience"? No one agreed, certainly I didn't agree, that "words should describe the world perfectly." They are as fallible as their speakers. Nor do I think words are "empty justifications." They are ways to invoke certain images or ideas that the speaker needs to communicate.
>>7459671
haha--essentialist. it's 2015 my man, your ideas of what people "ought" to be are rooted in the way things "were." "Back in the old days, men were men and women were women. There was no hormones or surgeries--people just dealt with it. And everything was great back then." But you didn't live back then. It's pretty clear that humanity is constantly on the up and up. get with the times.
>>7457829
I wouldn't argue too hard against some of your points, but the thing about women is false, successful women act like men because they're "success" is defined by men and they're surrounded by men at the top. have you ever had a self-respecting girlfriend, my man?
Also, the last point, about violence, is pants-on-head retarded. you might as well say that Hitler was the most effective leader in history. He literally ran Germany into the ground. Violence by itself is certainly not the answer. It may be effective, but it needs to be aided by a proportional amount of propoganda. The easiest way to lead a country is to actually lead it. See FDR. I don't know what you're on about regarding "Heroes" and sociopaths. sounds retarded.
>>7460744
I think he's suggesting that this particular direction isn't the way humanity should be progressing. And I'm in full agreement, if so. We've reverted to a place where people can't even understand basic truths, like normality.
>>7460748
whaddya mean by normality?
>>7460747
>have you ever had a self-respecting girlfriend, my man?
Yeah, but she's pretty masculine in her mind set.
>Also, the last point, about violence, is pants-on-head retarded.
Because you don't understand it.
>you might as well say that Hitler was the most effective leader in history. He literally ran Germany into the ground. Violence by itself is certainly not the answer. It may be effective, but it needs to be aided by a proportional amount of propoganda. The easiest way to lead a country is to actually lead it. See FDR.
Nope, the truth of society boils down to this: the person with the biggest stick wins. People might try to obscure that with 'politics' and 'morals', but when it really matters it's all about violence dominating. Which is why your mention of Hitler was completely retarded and irrelevant. He lost because he did not have the biggest stick.
>I don't know what you're on about regarding "Heroes" and sociopaths. sounds retarded.
What I mean is that most 'heroes' in ancient times (and stories in a similar vein) are based on how good they are at killing people. The vast majority don't find the act difficult or troubling. They simply slaughter their way to praise and adoration. It's not a difficult concept.
>>7460752
I mean exactly what I said. I thought /lit/ would be the last place to be asking for the definition of words. Go look it up.
>>7460755
from wikipedia
>Normality (also known as normalcy) is the state of being normal. Behaviour can be normal for an individual (intrapersonal normality) when it is consistent with the most common behaviour for that person. Normal is also used to describe individual behaviour that conforms to the most common behaviour in society (known as conformity). Definitions of normality vary by person, time, place, and situation – it changes along with changing societal standards and norms.
fuck you then. that's a huge load of baggage and I'm still not sure if you're talking about normality regarding sexuality or politics or frequency-of-drinking or whether the gays should marry or whatever. fucking cunt
>>7457766
>Having beliefs and not ideas
>>7460764
So much butthurt over so small a thing. Your idiocy has prompted an emotional response when you couldn't work out even the simplest of situations.
>>7460754
you could have explained all of that instead of some vague catch-all like "violence is the answer" you edgy fucking autist
"violence is the answer" could be used for anything, like, oh your girlfriend cheated on you? violence is the answer. kill her and yourself.
what you mean is "violence is the answer for international debate," which I'd still consider woefully uninformed. what are you credentials? >inb4 self study
>i read what i wanna read so i can absorb what I agree with
>>7460771
>still not understanding that non-greentext is what I was asking in the first place
>this unreliable
as always, fuck you then
>>7460772
>you could have explained all of that instead of some vague catch-all like "violence is the answer" you edgy fucking autist
Funny. You want a very obvious point clearly spelled out for you, yet I'm the autist. Sure thing, son.
>"violence is the answer" could be used for anything, like, oh your girlfriend cheated on you? violence is the answer. kill her and yourself.
Try reading. I said violence is OFTEN the answer. Very different point.
>what you mean is "violence is the answer for international debate," which I'd still consider woefully uninformed. what are you credentials? >inb4 self study
You can barely read. Not sure you're in any position to be telling me what I mean or asking for 'credentials' (more of your autism showing?).
>>7460777
as always, go fuck yourself
>>7460773
>this butthurt over not understanding basic words
Cheer up.
>>7460779
as always, go fuck yourself
>>7460778
So mad.
>>7460780
So very, very mad.
>>7457766
maybe try having non-edgy opinions? you can be opinionated on things that are not contentious. I find that the more political people are, the less prone they are to purely-literary insight, let alone genius. Beside the ancients, the only great writer I can think of who was political in his primary works, is Auden
>>7460738
>If enough people say that thing over there is a window then they have a reference for when they want to invoke that glass sheet that fills the hole in the wall.
Sure, but what I'm getting at is that to call something a window is a generalization, it doesn't actually refer to any real thing. If I say window, the image popping up in my head, along with the relations my mind makes to it, will be different from those of another person; at the same time they will be different from the sensible stimulus of a window I could be pointing at, for each of us; at the same time those stimuli or relations will be different at different times and locuses: the window could change shape, we could change angles, we could go blind, our ideas of window could change, and so on ad infinitum.
You talk of relations, but relations imply there are objects to be related; to me such objects don't exist. At most I can see there being an immense set of contrasts, but these are all projected by whoever perceives them upon a reality which is completely incapable of being experienced or explained perfectly, completely, or what-have-you.
So when I say words and ideas are false or a farce, I only mean it in regards to the rest of experience; in regards to the Truth™, nothing can be true or false, because Everything™ is reality (which is to say nothing is; you can see how words are failing me right now). But to succesfully communicate "the window is red" to another person, would require for us both to think the visual window exists and the verbal window can be applied to it; that some thing can be recognized as some word or idea. Sure, I can communicate but that doesn't mean what I'm saying will be throughly understood as I understand it.
And well, right now I am lost, hehe.
>>7460791
>how about changing your opinions to suit the masses?
Top pleb, mate.
>>7460795
yeah but I understand you pretty well right now, maybe not as thoroughly as you understand you, but I still get most of it. and so your original statement sounded more like, none of this communication is possible because words are false. well I don't think they are false if we are having this intelligent conversation. they might not be completely true either, but I don't mind that.
>>7460798
not what I meant. I don't mean change your opinion, I mean, write about things you know that won't stir up trouble. Everyone writes about love, for example. Or friendship or grief or frustration. Some of my favorite pieces of literature are completely devoid of politics. Is that so hard? Is this /lit/ or /pol/?
>>7460805
No, you didn't mean change your opinion. You meant just hide them away deep down and only be opinionated on what the masses agree with. Hooray for variation in narrative!!
>>7460807
It's not hiding as much as simply realizing, "I don't care about this enough to fight for it." I really don't care that gays marry or that trans have rights or that Syria is being bombed or that the refugees are knocking on the door, cause I don't care for politics. I may be opinionated on those things but I won't raise my voice to them or put them half-heartedly into my literature.
>>7460808
I don't like accusing people of the standard /lit/ "reading comprehension" insult because it really is worthless, but having =/= changing
>>7460800
Yeah Anon, that's not what I meant. Don't forget I said "false by virtue of not being reality"; it's the "by virtue of not being reality" that was the argument, not the "false". I was not saying words are wrong, what I was saying was that they are, they must be to even exist, inherently different from what they refer; so saying one word or another applies better to some object, absolutely, is a misunderstanding on what words are.
>>7460815
who is claiming that "one word or another applies better to some object, absolutely"? I didn't make that claim and I don't defend it either.
>>7460813
So basically completely puss out because you hold such weak views and would rather kowtow to the masses. "Are you writing something another person may disagree with?! Well stop that and change it to positions only we say you can!"
Orwell would be proud.
>>7460813
>"but having =/= changing"
>"maybe try having non-edgy opinions?"
>doesn't realise this means change opinions
Mein sides.
>>7460820
I think once again you are misunderstanding me. I cannot defend my political opinions against people who are more knowledgeable in the field, therefore I do not try. And I am not concerned with it either--if someone with a good argument and evidence shows up, then he'll change my opinion. But anyway I don't write about politics so it doesn't matter. Which was the sentiment of my original post. You dont have to take such offense. I'm not prescribing anything here.
>>7460819
We de facto make the claim whenever we communicate; if I told you sugar was sweet, would you disagree? Of course not, not because you couldn't contest it, but because it would be beside the point of the statement.
>>7460828
Great, now we're at the stage of 'don't write anything suggestive of politics because I don't'. Look at your first post and tell me you weren't being some smug cunt suggesting that using opinions or beliefs held by the masses is the only route to good literature. And now you're here, after repeatedly suggesting people hide their opinions, saying 'I wasn't saying anything'. Make up your fucking mind.
>>7460831
I'll be as smug as I want to on an anonymous image board, and there's nothing you can do about it, thank you very much
>>7460834
Go ahead. You'll still be a hypocritical cunt.
>>7460848
doesn't matter to me, it's always a good time knocking down a few /pol/ crossposters in this board
More and more kuks are getting red-pilled.
Only good can come from this.
>>7460867
maaaaan, the only thing that nigga needs is to be attractive
attractive people attract mates; want mate, be attractive, profit
>>7460867
>r/amiugly
keek
>>7460716
>criticise someone's opinions
>'lol butthurt'
Is this really the best standard of debate that we can muster
>>7461140
Coming from a person that immediately jumped to 'you're mental' as a counter-argument to his points?
>>7460755
I dunno why that guy dissolved into foaming hatred at this point, but here's what he should have said:
Normality, by its very definition, is mutable. Norms shift over time. Homosexuality is now within the bounds of normality, and non-binary gender is going that way too. Therefore an appeal to normality is not going to avail you at this stage in our societal development. You need a different point of reference for why you don't like these things; you'll find it hard to come up with one without resorting to unapologetic essentialism, and all essentialism is religious in nature.
>>7461141
But 'you're mental' wasn't my counterargument at all. First I criticised his opinions, THEN I ventured to speculate on his mental health.
Also, to talk of a counterargument at all is fallacious, because that guy didn't make an argument at all, just a bunch of assertions backed up by a vague appeal to some numinous 'piety' ideal.
>>7460747
Did you misspell Tumblr as 4chan in the Google search bar?
>>7461149
>But 'you're mental' wasn't my counterargument at all.
Yup, it was.
>First I criticised his opinions, THEN I ventured to speculate on his mental health.
Nope, you didn't. You tried to argue that he wasn't nihilistic (which wasn't even necessary), and then spent the rest of the post attacking him for disliking gays. No criticisms, just unfounded jabs at the state of his mental health because you got upset by it.
>Also, to talk of a counterargument at all is fallacious, because that guy didn't make an argument at all, just a bunch of assertions backed up by a vague appeal to some numinous 'piety' ideal.
And yet you still felt the need to try to pull him up on them. Ergo, attempted counter-argument. So while he gave his opinion, you got pissy and then attacked his character instead of the position. What kind of fallacy is that again, class?
>ad hominem
Yes, very good. Gold star to you for not putting your finger up your nose while you said it.
>>7461146
Problem being that homosexuality isn't normal. Heterosexuality is. In fact, all of these non-binary, trans-aspect, identity-fluid special snowflake disorders that are cropping up now aren't normal. They're still a very small minority.
So we end up with people ignoring what normality is and then suggesting at anomalies, disorders, and mistakes are all equally normal as the majority standard. We all know that heterosexuality is what is normal. We all know separated male and female genders is normal. It's part of our species. But while we allow this flourishing of deviations, we won't advance as we should. We'll stagnate, as each special snowflake tries to out-weird the other.
>>7461345
Frankly, we don't have much of an idea of what is 'normal' for our species, because we can't go back tens of thousands of years and observe the pre-agriculture homo-sapiens.
We HAVE observed the primitives/uncontacted peoples of the Sentinelese islands and other areas to some degree, and it appears that there is no large gender role or work-division difference. Many historians suspect that gender roles came about with the agrarian society and the ability of women to have more children and before then there was not much of a division of labor present in most groups.
>>7461506
Yeah... if being gay was normal, we wouldn't exist. It's a fairly easy conclusion.
Weird, since there are/were tribes on Papua New Guinea, the Amazon, and many parts of Africa where gender roles played a huge role on work-division. Men hunted, women remained and looked after the kids. No agriculture among them, just hunter-gatherer lifestyles.
>>7461529
These are not truly uncontacted since it is probable that they had cultural exchange with settled civilization dating to post-agriculture, e.g. the Mayans in the case of the South American primitives. The Sentinelese are a good test case because they've been living undisturbed on their island for up to 60,000 years.
There's other factors influencing what we can say about what is normal for humanity today. At no other time in history has humanity at large been consuming water with trace amounts of aluminum, plastics, pharmaceuticals, etc. which could easily be causing small changes in our health. Fetal development esp. is effected by small hormonal imbalances, and those materials are known to cause effects like that. The rising rate of homosexuality could be related to the increased rate of hormonal imbalance in the womb, or it could be related to whatever else is causing the ever increasing diagnosis of autism.
In such a case, it would be within the range of 'normal' for a human living in such conditions. But we can't do much other than pure speculation. Whatever the cause of homosexuality, it obviously lies within the human experience and thus is 'normal.'
>>7461578
>Whatever the cause of homosexuality, it obviously lies within the human experience and thus is 'normal.'
That isn't what denotes normality. It's the standard that does it. Homosexuality isn't normal by any means. Down's Syndrome can happen to humans, but it isn't normal. Autism can and also isn't normal. Blindness, schizophrenia, narcolepsy, etc, they're all not normal. They're all deviations from the norm. And this perfectly illustrates my point that a society that can't even grasp the norm is doomed the fail.
>>7461313
>ad hominem
No. An ad hominem would be 'the guy is a twat, therefore his arguments are wrong.' What I said was 'his arguments are wrong. Also he's a twat.' To briefly resummarise my actual opinion, minus the invective: that guy is elevating his personal prejudices to the level of the sacred, without even the poor excuse of having been gulled by an organised religion. I think that is silly.
I can't tell if you actually have fundamental problems interpreting written text or if you just can't think of any real points but desperately want to argue about something. Either way, I really can't be bothered interacting with you.
>>7461345
If you're defining 'normal' as 'average', then yeah, homosexuality is not normal, as only a minority are homosexual. Other things that are not 'normal' by that definition include: intelligence, physical excellence, and great strength of character. Should we persecute people who display those qualities as they are not 'normal'?
'But those things make one exceptional, homosexuality merely make one deviant', or something like that, right?
Your religion is showing.
>>7461529
>Yeah... if being gay was normal, we wouldn't exist.
Sure, back in the day, if everyone had been gay, we wouldn't exist now.
Then again, if back in the day everyone had been a neurosurgeon, say, or a theoretical physicist, or indeed a writer, we also wouldn't exist, because nobody would have been out hunting food or inventing better tools to survive.
Society can now support writers. It can also support gay people. There is not an underpopulation problem (unless you're Japanese.)
>>7461529
>Yeah... if being gay was normal, we wouldn't exist. It's a fairly easy conclusion.
If there were an overabundance of population and competition we might not exist. It's a fairly easy conclusion.
>>7461628
>Blindness, schizophrenia, narcolepsy
These are largely viewed as debilitative. Homosexuality, in the current zeitgeist, is becoming more accepted and less debilitative. I don't usually lash out and call people retarded, but you're retarded. I don't usually lash out and tell people to kill themselves either, but please, kill yourself.
>>7461529
If people weren't farmers we wouldn't exist either.
I don't get how people think the appeal to normality is somehow a good argument for anything.
People are gay, and they won't change being gay just because the culture you live in has a negative opinion of gays.
>>7457793
>Fashionable coffee house faux intellectuals like zizek
Have you read his books? Or are you just as stupid and illiterate as your opinions would indicate?
>>7457766
Hiding anything in writing is bound to failure, anon.
>I've even put conflicting ones in, though I've often favoured the my true belief.
>>7461702
No need to get so upset. I said nothing that should offend a reasonable mind.
>>7461783
>I said nothing that should offend a reasonable mind.
That's because you said literally *nothing*.
Saying shit is normal or not normal, is literally a vacuous statement, unless you include a corollary.
>>7461810
Which I did. The majority is the norm. There really is no need to get so upset about it.
>>7461870
You committed two mistakes.
The first one is to compare homosexuality to diseases and disorders such as blindness, schizophrenia or narcolepsy, which is retarded because someone who is gay can live a perfectly healthy and good life, whilst people who have blindness, schizophrenia or narcolepsy are usually debilitated and can't function properly, and therefore require that we help them.
The second mistake you committed was that you didn't say whether something being normal or not normal matters. Why does it matter that gayness is not normal?
>>7461878
>The first one is to compare homosexuality to diseases and disorders such as blindness, schizophrenia or narcolepsy, which is retarded because someone who is gay can live a perfectly healthy and good life, whilst people who have blindness, schizophrenia or narcolepsy are usually debilitated and can't function properly, and therefore require that we help them.
Actually, people who are blind can also have perfectly healthy and good lives. A bit patronising to assume otherwise.
But I chose diseases and disorders because that's basically what homosexuality is (a disorder, at least). The brain isn't working correctly, this has been the conclusion from a number of studies. Obviously, some gays do have problems in their lives because of it (an argument may be made that it's because of others around them, but then the same is true for many mental disorders), others do not. It's not my fault if you chose to take an emotional reaction to it.
>The second mistake you committed was that you didn't say whether something being normal or not normal matters. Why does it matter that gayness is not normal?
It only matters within context. If we are in a society where people reject reality for the sake of people's feelings, then we are in the wrong direction. It is a question of intellectual honesty if a person will say that homosexuality is normal. It obviously isn't, but to make such a leap is a problem.
So if it isn't clear enough, it's the pandering approach to the abstract concept of homosexuals (and trans-whatevers, and headmates and all that jazz) that's an issue. People can go bum whoever they like.
>>7461904
Saying homosexuality is a disorder is literally like saying it's a disorder to prefer ass instead of boobs.
>If we are in a society where people reject reality for the sake of people's feelings, then we are in the wrong direction.
Says who?
>>7461911
>Saying homosexuality is a disorder is literally like saying it's a disorder to prefer ass instead of boobs.
Not even close. There is a very clear difference between a heterosexual male brain and a homosexual brain. There is a mistake there, be it from an error in formation or the result of wonky genetics or both. The brain is disordered.
>Says who?
Says science. If logic and reason are put aside for the sake of feelings and emotions, society goes stagnant. You can't advance if the population is reacting instead of thinking, campaigning for ridiculous concessions instead of cutting-edge research, or obsessed with denying the world around them over study of it.
>>7460747
The ones who defeated him were as violent idiot. Who dropped the hell in Japan?
>>7461924
>There is a mistake there, be it from an error in formation or the result of wonky genetics or both. The brain is disordered.
Let say I agree with you for the sake of argument(I don't).
Please tell me how why this is an issue, and why it is a problem.
>>7461949
>Please tell me how why this is an issue, and why it is a problem.
I've only just explained that above. The whole 'ignoring reality for people's feelings' post? That it isn't who or what they are that's the issue, it's the attitude from less logical minds that's a concern? I feel like I just posted all this.
Does lit supports incest and polygamy? I know it is off topic but I always like to ask when people are discussing homos, just to see if they are hypocrites or not.
>>7461955
>That it isn't who or what they are that's the issue, it's the attitude from less logical minds that's a concern?
Right, so you think homosexuality is disgusting or a "disorder" because some people are emotional and argue irrationally?
Please explain your logic. I'm really trying to understand.
>>7461965
Yes.
>>7461965
I support it as long it's consensual.
Incest rarely is though. It's usually an insane mother or father raping their children.
>>7461965
if it's consensual, yes.
>>7461967
>Right, so you think homosexuality is disgusting or a "disorder" because some people are emotional and argue irrationally?
No. I think you're confusing me with someone else. I have not said it's disgusting at all. It is a disorder, plain and simple, with all emotion removed. It's a disorder because the brain is not functioning as it should, and this has been shown through numerous studies.
Now, the problem comes in when people do not accept that, purely on the grounds of 'feelings'. They attach this sort of taboo on the word disorder, and yet will freely use it to describe many other people without a second thought of their feelings. Effectively, it's putting emotions before logic and reason. Obviously, when this happens, the mind-set of a society alters so that they begin ignoring reality in favour of a fantasy land. Because what is fact is no longer welcome if it's judged to upset. Science, which works on objectivity, is weakened by the very idea that people can just arbitrarily decide what parts of reality to ignore or not.
What it boils down to isn't homosexuality in and of itself. It's the intellectual dishonesty when approaching it.
>>7457793
>intellectuals like zizek (who I like), and /lit/ are not willing to admit this.
>>7461724
Didn't Zizek basically say precisely that Islam is not compatible with western democracy?
http://inthesetimes.com/article/18605/breaking-the-taboos-in-the-wake-of-paris-attacks-the-left-must-embrace-its
" It is a fact that most of the refugees come from a culture that is incompatible with Western European notions of human rights. Tolerance as a solution (mutual respect of each other’s sensitivities) obviously doesn’t work: fundamentalist Muslims find it impossible to bear our blasphemous images and reckless humor, which we consider a part of our freedoms. Western liberals, likewise, find it impossible to bear many practices of Muslim culture.
...
To curb this propensity, one has to do two things. First, formulate a minimum set of norms obligatory for everyone that includes religious freedom, protection of individual freedom against group pressure, the rights of women, etc.—without fear that such norms will appear “Eurocentric.” "
>>7461996
Yes, but you haven't explained why it is so important for you to define it as a disorder.
There usually is some sinister motive to ascribing other people's nature as "disordered", regardless of whether or not it actually is factually true.
>>7462009
>Yes, but you haven't explained why it is so important for you to define it as a disorder.
Because it is. The brain is not ordered as it should. It is a DISorder. Taking away the word and pretending it's something else will not change that the brain is still disordered.
>There usually is some sinister motive to ascribing other people's nature as "disordered", regardless of whether or not it actually is factually true.
And yet we freely label many different disorders as exactly that.
>>7462021
>The brain is not ordered as it should
How "should" the brain be ordered though?
Different anon btw.
>>7462026
>How "should" the brain be ordered though?
As heterosexuals. It's the norm.
>>7462021
>And yet we freely label many different disorders as exactly that.
Yes, but as an other anon told you earlier, the things that are usually labeled as "disorders" are mental or physical maladies that leave people in some kind of impaired function.
And the mere existence of homosexuality certainly does not make you impaired.
>>7462030
Deviations from the norm are not inherently bad though.
>>7462067
He thinks they are. Every reactionary does.
>>7462083
Apparently you want everyone to think about the exact same things in the exact same way.
>>7462095
Missed it.
But basically, some people are impaired in some way. Some don't find it to be too much a problem. If we really want to get into impaired functions, homosexuals are impaired when it comes to reproduction.
>>7462100
I'd rather people actually think about things even as a starter.
>>7462105
>If we really want to get into impaired functions, homosexuals are impaired when it comes to reproduction.
And so are infertile heterosexuals.
What's your point?
>>7457766
>I've obscured them by having undesirable characters espouse them, or I've hidden them under what should be obvious allegory, just to give myself an escape route if anyone were to try to claim they were mine. I've even put conflicting ones in, though I've often favoured the my true belief.
>Not having a Ubermensch demigod main character who tells everyone else his extremist, profoundly politically incorrect opinions (which are actually YOUR opinions) without hiding it in the slightest.
Coward.
>>7462116
Not as a result of a mental disorder, though.
>>7462165
So what? What's your goal in saying it's a mental disorder?
Do you want homosexuality to be illegal, or to be socially frowned upon? Because that's what I'm getting from this appeal to nature.
>>7462165
Brain controls development.
Developed sexual impairment.
Technically a mental disorder.
>>7462030
The norm is also to be right handed. Would you say that people 'should' be right handed? Would you describe left handedness as a disorder?
It's the norm to have an IQ between 85 and 115. Would you say people 'should' have an IQ of no lower than 85 or higher than 115? Would you describe IQs of lower than 85 or higher than 115 as disorders?
>>7461996
>It's a disorder because the brain is not functioning as it should, and this has been shown through numerous studies
[citation needed]
Please show me these scientific studies which objectively validate your prior assumption that the brain 'should' work heterosexually. I'm genuinely interested.
Here's another thought. Only around 5% of the American population has red hair. It's therefore more abnormal than being gay. Do you think that makes red hair a genetic disorder?
>>7462255
>Technically a mental disorder.
Technically, no:
Medical Dictionary
mental disorder
noun
Medical Definition of MENTAL DISORDER
: a mental or bodily condition marked primarily by sufficient disorganization of personality, mind, and emotions to seriously impair the normal psychological functioning of the individual—called also mental illness
>>7461996
>It's a disorder because the brain is not functioning as it should,
Tell me more about the brains normative teleology.
>>7457766
You've got to be careful doing that. Good books are ruined by being too preachy.
When I was into YA fantasy I read the Sword of Truth series, and really, really wanted to love it, but it just got so preachy about freedom and anti-communism towards the end. I agree with the things he was preaching, too, but it still managed to be intrusive to the story.
Who knew, lit is full of fags
>>7462722
Hi Aaron Rodgers, you will fit right in.
>>7460744
>CURRENT YEAR
>>7461998
it's impossible that someone could have reading comprehension poor enough to not realize that fundamentalist Islam is an ideology quite apart from that of the Saudi princes you see in LA and Dubai. Get bent.
>>7457829
Tolkien is that you?
>>7462183
Read my previous posts. If you still don't understand, just resign yourself to thinking I have some problem with homosexuality itself and move on.
>>7462426
>The norm is also to be right handed. Would you say that people 'should' be right handed? Would you describe left handedness as a disorder?
If they were to study the brains of right and left handed people and discover that there was an area that greatly differs between them, then yes. There's also a correlation between 'left-handedness' and homosexuality, which is always interesting.
>It's the norm to have an IQ between 85 and 115. Would you say people 'should' have an IQ of no lower than 85 or higher than 115? Would you describe IQs of lower than 85 or higher than 115 as disorders?
Same as above (minus the link to homosexuality). Don't they already call IQs under a certain level 'mentally retarded' anyway?
>Please show me these scientific studies which objectively validate your prior assumption that the brain 'should' work heterosexually. I'm genuinely interested.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7456588.stm
>Here's another thought. Only around 5% of the American population has red hair. It's therefore more abnormal than being gay. Do you think that makes red hair a genetic disorder?
It's also a recessive gene. So, in the grand scheme of genes, it probably was just a mutation that had no chance against human globalisation. Much like blue/green eyes.
>>7462628
>impair the normal psychological functioning
Well it seems the word 'normal' is fine for definitions. And since homosexuality results in people not finding the opposite sex attractive, it is certainly an impairment of their psychology.
>>7463351
He's shitposting from the afterlife.
